Art Monthly Australia -- Child Pornography Update

This was something that I posted on previously and posed the question as to whether the photo should be considered to be child pornography. Not many comments, which is more indicative of my limited readership than the importance of the issue, however it would seem that the Classification Board in Australia has made this decision for us.

After Art Monthly Australia chose the picture for its cover as a protest on the recent seizing of images from an exhibition of Bill Henson's work in Sydney, the magazine was reported for a possible violation of the law. The Classification Board was asked for an opinion and it has now given one.

That opinion is to classify the picture with an M rating. This translates to "suitable for publication, though discretion is advised for viewers under the age of 15."

The photo in question of Olympia Nelson was taken by her mother, Pollixeni Papapetrou. Olympia's father Robert Nelson had this to say after the Classification Board came back with its decision, "I think she's feeling very happy because her argument has always been there's nothing wrong with the picture" and "the idea that it's pornographic is absurd."

It is worth noting that the Classification Board decision was not unanimous as several members arguing that the magazine should have been given a Refused Classification rating. The magazine did have additional graphic sexual images inside. A Refused Classification translates to the magazine being prohibited for sale.

At the time the politicians from all parties sensing blood in the water began circling like sharks around a defenceless surfer. The majority were jumping up and down describing the image as pornography, the sexualization of a child, the theft of Olympia's childhood, and that Art Monthly Australia should have all its public funding removed. Now that the Classification Board has issued an M rating I wonder how these same politicians feel about the Classification Board. Are we going to see a full-scale spill at the Board?

Life goes on!

More on Naked Kids as Art

The girl whose picture sparked the latest outbursts in the sexualization of children / child porn debate has come out in her own defence. The girl, Olympia Nelson, at the time the picture was taken was a mere six years old. She is now a much more commanding 11 years old. At 11 years old I am still not convinced that she knows or understands the implications of the photo or the debate that surrounds them.

The photos were taken by the Olympia's mother, Polixeni Papapetrou. I am not sure this makes a difference to the idea or arguments relating to exploitation. However, it does add to the dynamic of the argument the question, who should be able to make decisions relating to the photographing of minor children?

Nevertheless, the interesting part of this story is that Olympia Nelson is "really, really offended" that the PM, Kevin Rudd, cannot stand the images of a naked six year old Olympia. I prefer Brendan Nelson's (no relation as far as I know) characterization of the cover of Art Monthly Australia being the equivalent of a two-fingered salute to the rest of society.

The arguments being presented from both sides have some validity but none seem to be structured with a view to finding or striking some balance between the value of protecting children and any artistic value such images might have.

Art Monthly Australia have missed an opportunity to advance the argument by including other images of bondage involving a Japanese schoolgirl and a woman on the receiving end of some oral sex from an octopus. Sounds a little fetishy to me but I am sure it will peak some one's interest. Nevertheless, this is hardly a good means of getting people on side with your position.

The idea that these publications receive federal funding and therefore must comply to a certain standard would seem that the government offers funding as a means of dictating norms. There are probably arguments relating to free speech on this front but there are equally valid arguments that if the government is paying for it then it perhaps has a right to expect certain content acceptability provisions are to be put into place.

It would seem that this debate still has a ways to go before any resolution is found.

Child Pornography Debate -- Reignited

Is this child pornography?

Art or Child Porn -- Some More Thoughts

The art vs. porn debate is likely to rage on for a while and then perhaps disappear until the next time someone wants to run an exhibition with provocative images. However, I have been following this debate because of the legal implications and because I enjoy looking at how the debate is characterized considering art is such a subjective area of study.

I was forwarded a link to a discussion thread at a place called "net-model" which has some interesting stuff about Bill Henson and others who have produced similar images in the name of art over the years.

Nevertheless, I do want to throw something else into the fray here, and that is; assuming that Henson did all the right things and asked for and was granted the consent of the parents for the photographs, then where should the blame be apportioned in this case?

If these images are in fact classified as pornography then why is no one talking about the parents who allowed these photos to be taken? Has the child been removed from the family home because she is at risk from sexual exploitation by her parents?

When is too young for nude modelling work? Not a question I can or want to answer at this point in time or one that I need to answer. However, before a child reaches legal age to make decisions for themselves (legal capacity) then these decisions are made by the parent(s) and as such the parents must also be responsible for the consequences of the decisions made on behalf of their child.

Will these images do any irreparable psychological harm to the teen models that are the subject of these pictures, who knows? Only time will tell, won't it?

I wonder would we be having this debate if the pictures in question were the happy snappies from the family album and included photographs of kids in the bath, frolicking on the lawn or at the beach, or doing any other myriad of things that kids do and that their parents photograph them doing? What would be the arbitrary line in the sand that we as a community would draw to determine when a naked picture has a sexual context and when it is nothing more than an innocent family happy snappy?

Art is such a subjective thing and I guess this is why this debate had to happen...one person's art is another person's porn!

More to follow...

Art or Child Porn -- An Update

The exhibition was to be of 41 photographs of naked teenagers, mostly. Some of the models were allegedly only 12 years old and by my reckoning makes them pre-teen. However, the police have seized 20 of the 41 photographs as evidence and it is expected that both NSW and Commonwealth charges are to be laid under Child Protection Act. My reckoning is that there are probably offences committed under the Crimes Act as well. The Commonwealth law is being used with respect to the publishing of an indecent article on the Internet.

The actual offence requires the depiction of a child under 16 years of age in a sexual pose. I must say that I have not seen the pictures and can only refer to what has been written by others, but it would seem that at least some of the photographs would fall into that category. This is probably also affirmed in the decision for the police to execute a search warrant and seize 20 of the items that were listed to be exhibited.

So, it seems as if the debate on what constitutes art and what constitutes porn is about to enter the legal realm and specifically the courts of NSW. This will pit the experts against each other from the art, porn, and child advocacy worlds and their respective supporters in opposing camps.

On the Federal level the PM has already weighed in with a statement that he finds the images revolting and a case of stripping away the rights of children to be children and in essence do things that normal children do. One assumes that his statement is based on a viewing of the offending images and not just hearsay. As PM he could demand a look couldn't he?

As an additional note. Bill Henson is one of the artists that Year 11 and 12 students in NSW can study as part of a course for their Higher School Certificate (HSC) for a Board of Studies approved subject titled "Photography, Video, and Digital Imaging". It should be pointed out that this comes with a disclaimer in the sense that it mandates that teachers must choose appropriate subject material for study.

Art or Child Porn

An exhibition of Bill Henson photographs depicting 12 an 13 year old children fully naked and in poses that have been described as being sexual (includes some of the offending images) is about to open in Paddington (NSW, Australia) at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery. The invitation depicts a picture of a young girl in her full nakedness and one hand covering her crotch.

So, have the prevalence of images of naked children in the mass media meant that those things that were shocking in the past for our parents are now no longer shocking? It would seem so!

Children must be afforded special protections from exploitation and specifically from sexual exploitation and in that sense the purpose of this protection is to allow children to be children. The reality however is that children are being sexualized at much younger ages and being exposed to adult themes at much earlier ages than ever before. If you do not believe me then simply go to any newsagent or place that sells magazines aimed at the teen girl market and read a story or two.

The issue has become just that an issue and has sparked a Senate enquiry in Australia. The Report is due some time next month and I might post some excerpts from it once it has been released.

Does the ever-increasingly earlier sexualization of children do them long-lasting mental and psychological harm. I guess the answer to this question is going to depend on who you ask and how you characterize the question presented.

It is being reported that Clive Hamilton, former executive director of the Australia Institute, whose 2006 report Corporate Pedophilia, authored by Dr Emma Rush, brought the sexualization of children issue into the mainstream, said yesterday:

"They have a very postmodern agenda, [with] an old fashioned feminist view that girls should be able to explore their sexuality and any attempt to stop them … is perverse."

This seems like that it is a debate that is going to continue for some time as there are distinct and competing agendas at play here.

For me, at least on a personal level, this is a sad indictment of the world in which we live that children can no longer have the right to be children. But, then again, perhaps this is the nature of the beast. The beast in this case being increasingly sophisticated technologies for providing information which in turn forces children to "grow-up" more quickly.

Nevertheless, the question that I want to leave any readers who have made it this far with is:

"when does art cease to be art and become pornography, or is pornography art?"